Lynchburg Community Action Group I Group Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
540797340
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Lynchburg, VA, USA
Phone
4348462778
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,406,041
Expenses
$4,323,890
Assets
$1,340,270
Liabilities
$312,785

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

People named in this filing

  • DR ROBERT BASHORE (VICE-CHAIRPE)
  • TAISHA BRADLEY (BOD MEMBER)
  • MILTON CHAMBERS (BOD MEMBER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Lynchburg community action group, inc. Is a nonprofit corporation organized to carry out community action programs which are generally funded by revenue from agency programs and grants from local, state and federal agencies. Such grants usually requires compliance with prescribed grant conditions and other special requirements, including the furnishing of certain amounts of cash or noncash contributions.

What it reported doing in 2023

Head start. The lynchburg community action group head start program provides center-based quality, early childhood educational services to income eligible children and their families. The goals of head start are to ensure children are ready to successfully enter kindergarten. These goals are aligned with state and head state standards and include skill building in literacy, math, social/emotional and self-regulation skills. To ensure compliance with all regulations, head start utilizes the evidenced-based curriculums teaching strategies creative curriculum for preschoolers and conscious discipline for social/emotional and self-regulation. For the 2023-24 school year, lyncag's head start program served 189 children and their families, the vast majority of who were at or below the poverty rate.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 98% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.4%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 93.1%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 78.6%; rating input score 79; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.9%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.31; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.8% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91.4% of revenue deployed · 93.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 27 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D other liabilities reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.